In a move that’s raising more questions than it answers, a group of Maryland Democrats staged a sit-in outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Baltimore this week after being denied access for what they claimed was an “oversight visit.” The group included Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks, along with Reps. Glenn Ivey, Sarah Elfreth, Kweisi Mfume, and Johnny Olszewski Jr., all of whom were photographed sitting on the floor in front of a locked door labeled “ERO Baltimore Office.”
According to a statement from the lawmakers, they were there to make sure ICE was “treating detainees humanely and operating within the bounds of federal law.” Alsobrooks posted on X: “We were denied entry. The fear we are all feeling will pass, but the shame that our country will carry as a result of this conduct, will last generations.”
Elfreth echoed the outrage online, writing on X that her “Maryland delegation colleagues and I were just denied access to an ICE facility in Baltimore — despite our clear legal right to conduct oversight,” and alleged that “constituents are being snatched off the streets.”
Let’s pause on that. When elected officials describe the lawful detention of illegal aliens—many of whom are accused of violent crimes—as people being “snatched off the streets,” it says more about their political priorities than anything else.
The lawmakers cited the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, which does indeed give Members of Congress legal authority to access Department of Homeland Security (DHS) holding facilities without prior notice. Yet DHS pushed back hard, citing the need to protect the President’s constitutional authority over executive departments. “A week is sufficient to ensure no intrusion on the President’s constitutional authority,” DHS stated in a direct reply to Rep. Olszewski.
In a striking rebuke, DHS fired back on X: “Congressman, if you need a photo op with the violent criminal illegal aliens you are protecting—schedule a TOUR.” The agency clarified that visits should be planned with enough lead time to avoid interfering with executive branch functions, emphasizing that any exception would require approval by the Secretary.
In a press conference, Rep. Mfume admitted the group had been allowed into the building but was denied access to the detention wing. He explained: “We were not allowed entry, so we had to stand outside, bang on the door, and ultimately sit in front of the door.” According to Mfume, a facility director eventually told the group she had been ordered not to allow “anyone, member of the House, Senate, or anyone, into the facility.”
Here’s what’s not being said loudly enough: Secretary Kristi Noem shared photos on X of some of the individuals detained inside that very ICE facility. These weren’t folks simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many had been arrested for rape, conspiracy to commit murder, and the sexual abuse of minors. “These are the monsters that @ChrisVanHollen is protecting over American victims,” Noem wrote.
If that name rings a bell, it’s because Van Hollen has a track record here. He previously flew to El Salvador to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia—an illegal alien deported under the Trump administration for suspected ties to MS-13 and human smuggling. Initially blocked from seeing Garcia, Van Hollen eventually got his meeting—and was photographed with him, seemingly enjoying margaritas. He denied drinking, but the message was clear: his sympathies lie not with law enforcement or public safety, but with individuals ICE is working hard to remove from American communities.
Even Maryland’s Democrat Governor Wes Moore weighed in previously, suggesting that Garcia should be “brought back home to Maryland.”
Let’s be clear: ICE isn’t stonewalling Congress. It’s taking a security-first approach in an era when partisan theatrics increasingly disrupt federal operations. Democrats may call it a transparency issue. But to many Americans—especially those concerned about crime, national sovereignty, and law enforcement being allowed to do its job without political interference—this looked like a publicity stunt gone flat.
If oversight is truly the goal, scheduling a visit seems like common sense. But when lawmakers are more eager to play protestor than policymaker, you have to wonder if they’re more interested in headlines than homeland security.
